Jump to content

Poll: Smoke Laying (2 Parts)


3 replies to this topic

Poll: Smoke revisions (14 member(s) have cast votes)

Should artillery smoke be more obvious?

  1. Remove it entirely, (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  2. Fine as is (6 votes [42.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  3. It should be somewhat larger (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  4. If you're within the strike zone you should be inside the smoke (4 votes [28.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

Should there be a smoke launcher?

  1. Terrible idea (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  2. Yes! Several varieties! (10 votes [71.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.43%

  3. Yes, but unable to mimic artillery smoke. (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Errant Variable

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 12 October 2014 - 08:26 PM

Artillery smoke is kind of a cool idea, but seems kind of useless since the artillery crews couldn't see it (makes perfect sense for airstrikes though). I would like to see it gone, however if it must stay because there needs to be a marker I would like to see two enhancements. The first is that it should be thicker, and instead of a rapidly escalating plume it should hang out around ground level for a while longer and provide some sort of visibility dampener.

The second is that a smoke laying device strikes me as potentially a lot of fun. Implementation could be either a single-use consumable for those who don't care about UAVs, or add it in as a low-tonnage ballistic option. Aside from the obvious trolling use, laying a barrage of smoke and having the people on the other end need to guess if they should fall back and prepare or if there are no actual strikes in all that smoke and they hug the first person through - this could break up a lot of the traditional stagnation scenarios.

Lastly, I'm guessing that there are still some people around who were first interested in this game when they saw a certain Atlas looming out of the smoke to thrash on a Warha+++++++***CARRIER LOST***

#2 Redshift2k5

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 11,975 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland

Posted 12 October 2014 - 08:37 PM

Smoke would be great, but particle effects are very expensive and low spec systems will have particle on low or disabled; if smoke was a hazard, many players would also set their particles to low to avoid falling victim to a smokescreen. This has been shot down by the devs on numerous occasions.

#3 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,436 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 23 October 2014 - 06:17 PM

https://developer.nv....com/flameworks

"No particles used". Scalable and with limited physics and only obfuscation needed with the grid drawing then this could provide a potential solution. Worth investigating for the potential additional gameplay that smoke use could provide?

#4 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,811 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:12 AM

Still, smoke would be nice as a battlefield effect, plus it gives us (the players) another option to use.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users